Look what just came in the mail :D

[Henrik Granlid]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second book in my collection of reference and study- material. My first one was Claude Blair, this time, it's Paul Martin.

http://imgur.com/a/shwCy

[Thorsteinn]

I must be a groob. I've never heard of said book.

[Sir James A]

Is that the one that has been out of print ~40 years??

[Sir Douglas]

  *Drool*

[Henrik Granlid]

http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Armour-9th-17th-Century/dp/0804800308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424478224&sr=8-1&keywords=Paul+Martin+armour

There are a few used copies in bookstores around the US it would seem, mine was such a copy, although it does lack the gorgeous sleeve, that'd be the only thing about it. Ofc there is some slight internal spine damage, but not out of harm, but out of love. Martin's is absolutely brilliant for referencing anything not specifically tied to a collection (since the collection books are better at that). It gives a nice summary and overlook of each century it deals with. And it has weapons.


And here's Claude Blair's book, more of a read than Martin's, but for textual research, it's nigh unbeatable. I'd rank it up there with a few of the recent PHD-thesis' that have shown up.

http://www.amazon.com/European-Armour-circa-1066-1700/dp/B0061CZ81M/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1424478437&sr=8-8&keywords=Claude+Blair+european

[Ian]

Nice!

I don't have that book!  I do have Claude Blair though, 1st edition, 1959.  Unfortunately it was once owned by a library so it has some library markings in it and the library numbers on the spine, but it's in awesome condition for a 56 year old book.

[Sir Nate]

Nice!

I don't have that book!  I do have Claude Blair though, 1st edition, 1959.  Unfortunately it was once owned by a library so it has some library markings in it and the library numbers on the spine, but it's in awesome condition for a 56 year old book.

How does the info hold up today?

[Ian]

And here's Claude Blair's book, more of a read than Martin's, but for textual research, it's nigh unbeatable. I'd rank it up there with a few of the recent PHD-thesis' that have shown up.

I would even go so far as to say that PhD theses are sometimes worse sources.  Sometimes academia is so rigid and bound to its ideas that it can have some peculiar ideas.  Academia can be very incestuous on what it thinks is right and what it promotes.  Theses also carry a certain weight that many people find difficult to question, which is dangerous when some things are clearly wrong.  For example, in one of the recent published PhD theses that included an absolute gold mine of never before seen photos, there are tons of photos of highly suspect pieces that are likely fakes.  The problem is nothing indicates they might be fakes unless you happen to know those pieces already.  So a person who doesn't will just assume all the armor photographed in there are originals and draw conclusions based on that.  Also, out of the 11 bascinets surveyed in that thesis used to measure the thickness of the skulls and visors, the majority of them are suspected fakes, so it unfortunately doesn't tell us  much about actual bascinet thickness.   But people will now cite them as originals because they're in a PhD thesis....

[Sir James A]

http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Armour-9th-17th-Century/dp/0804800308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424478224&sr=8-1&keywords=Paul+Martin+armour

Wow, 1968. Older than I thought. I vaguely recalled flipping through that one at an antique arms and armor show a few years ago. Congrats on the purchase.